Do They Care?

While many people dismiss insights from public choice, what's striking is its casual acceptance in conversation and discussion.

Keith Hennessey posted today about the odds on various things happening with the Senate's and House of Representatives' proposed tax increases, aka, health care "reform."

Here are two particularly interesting passages. First one:

Congressional Democrats appear to believe that enactment of a comprehensive law is critical to their re-election. Most seem to believe that a White House signing ceremony is more important than the contents of the bill that becomes law.

In other words, what matters to them is that they do what's necessary to get reelected regardless of the contents.

And this:

The bills being developed would increase private health insurance premiums for most and bend the private cost curves up, but you don't hear the White House protesting. It's easier to get a bill when you don't care too much what's in it.

Comments and Sharing

Your concern is valid, the legislators should care more about the content of laws than about re-election. However, describing this as one party problem is naive and, frankly, just this side of ignorant.

jlr,
I'm not sure what "this side of ignorant" is, but I didn't describe it as a one-party problem. Notice that this post is about public choice, not about Democratic Party choice. The Republicans are just as bad, if not worse, on war.
David

David, the critique of public choice is that that it says that's true is trivial, and that what it says that's not trivial is false.

You're giving an example of the first. What reader of a newspaper or political scientist going back, say, to Machiavelli did not know that politicians need to do things to acquire power? Repeating this in theoretical form is trivial.

What would not be trivial is showing that *all* politicians care about is power (or money). But such a finding would be false.

"What would not be trivial is showing that *all* politicians care about is power (or money). But such a finding would be false."

Actually, I think there is very solid evidence that the statement is true. Politicians never create and offer a service with a risk that no one will pay for it. They make us pay first and then design some level of "service" that ensures them a profit. That is, they always take the money (and power) up front.

"In other words, what matters to them is that they do what's necessary to get reelected regardless of the contents."

Why that is:

Providing they bother to read anything at all, most people go only so far as to look at the headlines or, in the case of the slightly more industrious, the first line or two from each article. They listen to radio stations that recycle the same news every 10 minutes. The information they pick up from the Internet is what they happen to notice at Yahoo! when they retrieve their e-mails. Most of what they watch on television is commentary that supports their point of view, but provides very little detail.

They select their representatives based upon the claims made in the campaign junk mail they receive.

As a result, most people are clueless when it comes to issues such as National Healthcare and will remain clueless until it affects them personally. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late. :\

David,
It looks like this is another clear example of the Principal-Agent problem inherent in our representative form of government. The incentives of the agent (congressman) are not aligned with the best interest of the principals (electorate) in our government. I still believe, to paraphrase Churchill, a representative democracy is the worst form government except for all the others that have been tried.

Blogging software: Powered by Movable Type 4.2.1.
Pictures courtesy of the authors.
All opinions expressed on EconLog reflect those of the author or individual commenters, and do
not necessarily represent the views or positions of the Library of
Economics and Liberty (Econlib) website or its owner, Liberty Fund,
Inc.

The cuneiform inscription in the Liberty Fund logo is the
earliest-known written appearance of the word
"freedom" (amagi), or "liberty." It
is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.